Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Julian Assange, Neo Nazis, et al. Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But my simple point pierced the heart of your argument. That the leaks are vetted by wikileaks to keep people safe. They simply are not (The channel 4 story is valuidated across the board. It was widely reported at the time they were released) and Assange has stated explicitly that he wants an end to US intervention abroad. Evidently, judging by his flagrant disregard for Afghan lives as long as they are helping Nato and associated humanitarian charities. His political agenda comes before the safety of innocent civilians who just want stability and protection.

    How is that any better than those who support the war explaining away civilian casualties as necessary colatteral.
    I agree it was wrong but I don't think it accounts for the entire body of the organisation's work. If that's the case, we may as well discredit governments as a mad house.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I agree it was wrong but I don't think it accounts for the entire body of the organisation's work. If that's the case, we may as well discredit governments as a mad house.


    Oh I agree with you here. I am merely contending the now popular perception of wikileaks as somehow being whiter than white.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :yawn: No they don't. Can you perhaps direct me to a recent attempt on his life?
    They're not actually going to kill him, because that would make him a martyr and because he has hidden some more data to be released automatically after he dies. But they do want to murder or do bad stuff to him really badly. Even public figures in america have asked for his death. The rape charges appearing suddenly after some more leaks? You just have to see the comments on video websites to see that even random people want to hurt him, perhaps even you He has to travel with bodyguards everywhere. He'll never live a normal life after wikileaks.


    Wikileaks do not analyse anything. It is the press and the public who analyse it. Another dud excuse. So much fo wikileaks being a simple channel for secret information.
    Of course they analyse it! They're not going to release information randomly without verifying whether it is true or relevant.
    From the website :
    "When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves. "
    "We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published."


    So there IS an agenda? According to you Wikileaks is not the simple channel for secret information it claims to be. Why would it want to publicise these like ne of the mainstream media channels? It's not as if they make profit from coverage. So much for nuetrality.
    (I didn't understand the phrase in italics :confused:)
    Their agenda is to promote government transparency. Releasing secret information is just one way to do it. Wikileaks is non profit. Nobody does anything without an agenda anyway. They might be biased against america, but that's because it's the country that claims to be the most democratic so it's the best target.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoliceStory)
    It helps to read the article posted before commenting.
    Uh, two random blog entries are about as valuable a source as a daily mail article. I mean, the first one is called Harry's place and has a cat as a logo. The second one is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh

    It helps to examine the context of the information you read before commenting. Besides, even if that Shamir guy did make a single fake release (which is doubtful), it doesn't affect the validity of all other leaks, especially the more important ones relating to america which cause the most controversy.

    I suggest you do more research before dismissing my post, much appreciated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    Uh, two random blog entries are about as valuable a source as a daily mail article. I mean, the first one is called Harry's place and has a cat as a logo. The second one is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh

    It helps to examine the context of the information you read before commenting. Besides, even if that Shamir guy did make a single fake release (which is doubtful), it doesn't affect the validity of all other leaks, especially the more important ones relating to america which cause the most controversy.

    I suggest you do more research before dismissing my post, much appreciated.
    Which is why HP is an award winning website, and one of the most well read political sites online. :confused: Reason is also a credible source.

    Is the Guardian credible enough for you? There's also plenty of information on the faked cables around.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoliceStory)
    Which is why HP is an award winning website, and one of the most well read political sites online. :confused: Reason is also a credible source.

    Is the Guardian credible enough for you? There's also plenty of information on the faked cables around.
    Fair enough

    At least this story concerns Russia only. I still think most of what wikileaks released is worth something. That collateral murder video was enough to put me off CoD and my breakfast.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    I think it is wrong, but that's his belief so what gives us the right to tell him he's wrong and that he isn't allowed his own beliefs? It's hypocritical to use your freedoms to try to remove others'.

    In this instance, YOU SEND IN THE SAS and teach these mofos what's right. You sound French to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    They're not actually going to kill him, because that would make him a martyr and because he has hidden some more data to be released automatically after he dies.

    So, essentially you have utterly defeated your own original point. Congratulations what a waste of my time.

    Of course they analyse it! They're not going to release information randomly without verifying whether it is true or relevant.
    From the website :
    That essentially will take mere minutes, the veracity of electronic documents is nothing compared to hard copy. Another complete non argument on your part.


    (I didn't understand the phrase in italics :confused:)
    Their agenda is to promote government transparency. Releasing secret information is just one way to do it. Wikileaks is non profit.
    Then why did Assange demand $700,000 from Amnesty International when they asked him to censor the names of those innocent Afghan civilian tribal elders who had worked with human rights organisations despite the Taliban threatening to execute them if they did.

    Just so you know Assange released these names anyway and the Afghan war files were downloaded 5000 times in country. effectively providing the Taliban with an executation list to get busy with, it also severed much of the trust built up with human rights charities.

    His excuse: These files will save more lives than they take. WOW for somebody against American foreign intervention he loves to borrow the rhetoric and justify collateral damage doesn't he?

    Nobody does anything without an agenda anyway. They might be biased against america, but that's because it's the country that claims to be the most democratic so it's the best target.
    Finally we get to the main point. Assange is anti-American just like most of the sopping masochistic modern left wing. It is such a pathetic principle to hold when there are others like say anti-totalitarianism, anti-exploitation. Broad noble principles which cover a far wider spectrum than the rabid spittle flecked hatred of America held by men like Assange, tariq Ali, and the borderline senile John Pilger. As an individual devoted to leftist causes and principles it makes me ****ing sick to my stomach.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.